Throughout European history, absolute monarchy has been seen in many nations as an effective form of government. Complete control over a state and its people enabled rulers of the time to accomplish much by expanding lands, strengthening the economy, and often improving the lives of the common people. Phillip II of Spain and Peter the Great of Russia are two rulers who exemplify this theory. Although similar in some ways, the two also had differences in their rulings, both of which led to their overall success as absolute monarchs. Phillip II worked hard to centralize his government, so that all parts of his government became responsible to him. Similarly, Peter the Great centralized his royal power and changed the government structure to reach his goals of modern European style reforms in Russia.
Phillip became determined to expand Spanish Catholic power. He broadened the nation’s borders with the military force of his powerful navy. Peter used comparable methods in Russia with his military to push Russian lands to the Baltic Sea. Here he built a warm-water port after a long war with Sweden.
Phillip worked hard to insure that his divine rule was enforced in the lives of the people, and the culture of Spain during this time reflects this. Peter the Great also believed that his absolute rule should be imposed in the culture and daily lives of his people. Despite their similarities in ruling, Phillip had his own unique methods and reasons for running a government. Although both rulers centralized royal power and had complete control, Phillip II claimed divine right, meaning his authority came from God.
The Essay on Peter the Great 6
Tsar Peter I, also known as Peter the Great, ruling Russia from 1689 to 1725, implemented major military and domestic reforms that centralized Russia and increased its role in Europe. He centralized his power and revolutionized the role of the servant nobility, creating a vast bureaucracy that would stabilize Russia. He would apply Western principles to his armies and the Russian Cossacks would ...
His reasons for expansions of borders by military force were unique from Peter’s in that they were done for religious purposes. Phillip wanted not only to expand his nation’s territory and power, but also that of the Catholic Church and its influence. While both of these two absolute rulers brought their nations culture under their own influence, Phillip imposed Catholic culture and religious unity to all of his people. The regular activities and lifestyles of the people were directly shaped by his cultural choices. Peter’s rule was not the same as Phillip’s in every aspect and there were in fact a number of variances. Although Peter acted as the most autocratic ruler Russia had ever had, he inherited his throne at a young age and never claimed his power came from divine right.
In addition, Peter’s military campaigns were fought for his own particular goals for Russia. His main concern was establishing a warm-water port for his country, something it had never had. Religion had very little influence over his actions. Finally, other countries inspired the reformed culture created by Peter during his reign. He wanted to modernize Russia after visiting and studying European culture, and therefore forced his ideas on the Russian people and government. Overall, the similarities and differences in the styles and methods used in their governance enabled their powerful and influential legacies as rulers.
Along with other autocrats of the time, the reigns of Phillip II and Peter the Great reinforced the common belief of the need for a strong central authority in a government. Absolute monarchy in the majority of European nations for more than two centuries proved this belief during this time period in history.
